Quantcast
Anyone else feel resolution is overrated?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Anyone else feel resolution is overrated?

I prefer...

Resolution over detail/effects 23 26.14%
 
Detail/effects over resolution 65 73.86%
 
Total:88

Given the fact my GOTY runs at 960x1080 (Astro Bot), I can sure say resolution is not important for my enjoyment of a game. It might add a little sparkle on top, but it is by no means necessary. Everything above 1080p is great period and I actually hate HUGE TV's and what they do to living rooms, which are needed to fully enjoy UHD resolutions anyway.



Around the Network

Theres deminishing returns (visual improvements) on increaseing resolutions.
(720p vs 1080 is a bigger differnce than say 1440p vs 2160p)

Its like that picture with triangle counts, where at start a small increase resulted in a massive differnce in IQ, but lateron massive triangle counts barely improve things.

Hope we spend the GPU resources better than just chaseing resolutions needlessly in the future.
Like I dont see any point in 8k next gen or the one after.



Peh said:

The higher the resolution the higher the details: 

^ thats some marketing BS stuff, and not real.

 

 

This is the "real" thing:

PS4pro (set to running 1080p):

vs

Xbox One X (4k):

 

In alot of games the difference isnt that great.
Fornite being a prime exsample of this.



JRPGfan said:

Theres deminishing returns (visual improvements) on increaseing resolutions.
(720p vs 1080 is a bigger differnce than say 1440p vs 2160p)

Its like that picture with triangle counts, where at start a small increase resulted in a massive differnce in IQ, but lateron massive triangle counts barely improve things.

Hope we spend the GPU resources better than just chaseing resolutions needlessly in the future.
Like I dont see any point in 8k next gen or the one after.

And this to was the point of a thread I made a while back.

It can't be denied that while there.. it gets harder and harder to spot the difference in resolutions as they go higher. Especially if keeping screen size and viewing distance the same. 

The average person gaming on a TV will have a 55"-65" and be sitting at around 8-10ft from that TV. 4k at the size and distance is honestly overkill and the real benefits of 4k at that distance will only really be appreciated a sizes of 75" and up. This average is being very generous as a majority of all gamers still game on sub 4k displays. 

I am not saying that the difference in resolution isn't still there. But I just don't think it can be denied that it gets harder to spot. ANd I think the media feeds into this nonsense too. Like when you need to make a video where you have to zoom into an image by like 500% to be able to point out a difference...... well at that point you know this whole thing has gotten silly. 



manuelogando40 said:
It depends. At the beginning of the generation the resolution was the most important thing.
After the output of xbox one x, the resolution is no longer important.

Honestly deminishing returns, it matters more at lower resolutions.
Ironically Nintenod has 3rd party games running 520p (portable) and like 640p (docked) and no one really cries much over that.

In alot of games the differnnce between the Pro & X, isnt that great (i know there are some where its very apparent, but that is the minority).
Smaller than the differnce was between the fat xbox one vs ps4.



Around the Network
JRPGfan said:
manuelogando40 said:
It depends. At the beginning of the generation the resolution was the most important thing.
After the output of xbox one x, the resolution is no longer important.

Honestly deminishing returns, it matters more at lower resolutions.
Ironically Nintenod has 3rd party games running 520p (portable) and like 640p (docked) and no one really cries much over that.

In alot of games the differnnce between the Pro & X, isnt that great (i know there are some where its very apparent, but that is the minority).
Smaller than the differnce was between the fat xbox one vs ps4.

And in those cases where its "very apparent" its usually because lower quality assets like textures and maps are being used on the PS4pro due t its smaller amount of RAM than an outright resolution difference.

Its not like in motion one looks sharp and the other looks like a blurry mess. 

I sometimes wonder if the people that make those comparisons play games with d'a magnifying glass or something.



JRPGfan said:
Peh said:

The higher the resolution the higher the details: 

^ thats some marketing BS stuff, and not real.

Those fortnite picks are BS. The XBO X runs the game dynamically from 1152p to 1728p. The PS4 Pro runs dynamically from 900p to 1080p.

Why are both those images 1152p? Because they shrunk the XBO X image down to it's worst possible resolution, and scaled up PS4 Pro for comparison.

The PS4 Pro image should be scaled up to the same size as the XBO X for comparison, but the XBO X image should not be shrunk down at all.

If the XBO X was actually rendering at 1152p in that scene they took a screenshot of, then they chose the worst possible scene for comparison, again to make the PlayStation look good, and makes using it as a comparison for "4k vs 1080p" completely useless, as those images are comparing 1152p vs 1080p, not 2160p vs 1080p.

Last edited by Barkley - on 02 December 2018

Predictions (Made July 2019)

LTD: PS4 - 130m, Switch - 110m, XBO - 52m       2019 : PS4 - 15m, Switch - 18.8m, XBO - 4.8m        2020: Switch - 22m (Peak Year)

curl-6 said:

So I'm replaying Alan Wake on the 360 at the moment, in glorious 960x540, and it strikes me; this game still looks great.

You should at least play it on an Xbox One to avoid screen tearing and to have less slowdowns from 30 fps to ~25 fps... the black crush problem of the initial BC emulation has been fixed.

Obviously the PC version is the way to go for Alan Wake since it beats the 360-version in every aspect by miles (resolution + framerate + effects + viewing distance + no screen tearing)



 

...but seriously as a long time console gamer who transitioned to pc gaming over the last year or so with a fairly powerful pc, the difference having higher resolutions and framerates (especially) makes to the gaming experience is amazing

i can't go back now, when i see stuff in 30 frames on console it hurts my eyes now and low resolutions make everything look so blocky



Resolution, special FX/textures/frame rate are trade offs, when the devs build their game they fix those attributes to suit the hardware the game is going to run on... Now, except frame rate they're all mostly up to taste.

Like, for most 3D graphics everything else being equal higher resolution (let's say 4K vs 1440p like in XboxOne X vs PS4 Pro or 1080p vs 720p like on PS4 vx XboxOne) is better... however, if you take a different game and compare it to another game you could prefer the one that has lower resolution, it's nothing new, nor is it surprising.

However, I prefer low resolution pixel art, like we had in 16-bit area arcade games or console games (arcades had much better specs, they allowed for more frames of animation, more colors sprites and details in the backgrounds, which often allowed for better looking games)... There are few HD 2D games that I find more pleasing to look at than those old school games, it may be my nostalgia infused take on it.

As for frame rate, I'd say 144hx or bust! ... not really, you can play and have fun with games that have low or very low frame rate (a lot of people argue that Zelda Ocarina of Time is the best game of all time, and I think it runs at 20FPS on the N63) so without context it means little, but I am pretty sure that if we had access to a 120fps version of this game people would love it "more" as the feeling of smoothness would be just amazing, riding Epona through the hills would be just amazing and it would feel like a new game altogether.

Now when I setup graphics details to play on PC I give frame rate above 60fps the top priority, when I have the option on the PS4 PRO I take the high FPS option (I played god of war at 1080 on my 4K screen... I couldn't stand 30FPS when I switched from some unstable close to, but not quite, 60fps)... as for details vs resolution I say it depends :-/ native resolution is preferable, but as you said, "it depends".

So there is no right answer to this question.